It was a cold, late afternoon in early January of 2022. I left my apartment as I had done countless times before. My destination was a church’s analytical lab, where I was involved in an ongoing psilocybin experiment.

Upon arriving at the warehouse, I parked my car in the familiar spot and headed into the lab. However, on this particular day, a strange feeling of impending doom crept up my spine as I approached the large roll-up door. Dismissing my intuition as an inconvenient interruption, I continued into the lab to work alone.

Inside, the deafening roar of the chemical-resistant fan that powered the fume hoods made it difficult to hear anything. But amid the noise, a destructive crash from somewhere in the building caught my attention. The sight of charred and mangled cars outside the warehouse did little to ease my growing concerns.

As darkness descended on the warehouse, I ventured toward the commotion. Frantic flashlight beams pierced through gaps in the large wooden roll-up doors leading to the loading bay. Through a small hole in the paneling, I witnessed a scene that sent shivers down my spine: heavily armed officers in bulletproof vests, armored helmets, and automatic weapons.

Disbelief washed over me as the officers repeatedly commanded me to open the doors. Still in shock and peering through the small hole in the paneling, I asked to see a search warrant. The response was swift and brutal, with the barrage of a battering ram shaking me from my stupor. As I was knocked to the floor along with shards of the door, the reality of the situation began to sink in.

I allowed the police inside, and the warehouse doors gradually rose to reveal a team of heavily armed officers in the loading bay. I was searched, cuffed, and placed face down on the hood of a police cruiser, surrounded by a fleet of police vehicles in the cold winter night.

Down the Rabbit Hole: How it All Began

As the cold settled into my chest, I reflected on everything that had led to this moment.

From an early age, I witnessed the tragic effects of addiction, compulsion, and mental affliction in my loved ones. This led me down a path of fascination with medicinal chemistry, introspective psychonautics, and the healing journey. I spent years immersed in laboratories, pushing the boundaries of my own limitations. But beneath my ambitions lay unprocessed trauma, and I was ultimately neglecting my own needs.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, I found connection with a community rooted in Kabbalistic Judaism. This diverse group (editor’s note: name withheld) embraced holistic practices, including holotropic breathwork, yoga, artistic expression, nature retreats, and guided ceremonies with psychedelic mushrooms as its sacrament. This religious nonprofit prioritized safety, with a doctor available at all times and thorough participant screening.

Recognizing the inherent variability in mushroom potency, the group sought to standardize their psilocybin sacrament. They launched an extensive cultivation and breeding project, and in the spring of 2021, I moved to Denver to support their efforts.

Over months, we transformed an empty warehouse into a 2,000-square-foot laboratory equipped with advanced analytical instruments. With chest freezers filled with freshly frozen, vacuum-packed psychedelic mushrooms, our goal was to extract, purify, and analyze the sacrament to determine its potency and enable consistent dosages.

Contributing to the safety of the congregation while delving into a subject close to my heart felt like a dream come true. My journey, marked by my biological father’s overdose, the study of Alexander Shulgin’s work, 18 months of immunosuppressive chemotherapy, and my near-participation in a MAPS clinical trial, had brought me full circle. I was now actively involved in a movement of compassion, community, and cooperation—a movement that offered solace and respite from the cruelties of modern life.

The Legal Conundrum

Despite my willingness to support the church’s mission, I hadn’t blindly walked into it. My legal counsel and the synagogue’s had cited multiple case precedents and interpretations of the law supporting the church’s actions as a legal and legitimate form of religious expression.

These legal arguments hinged on various factors, including the 2019 city-wide decriminalization of psychedelic mushrooms, the Denver Police Department’s pledge to deprioritize psychedelic mushroom-related offenses, and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which guaranteed free religious expression for all faiths on American soil.

However, this thin veil of safety was torn apart as officers tore through the church’s facility, uncovering chest freezers filled with large frozen mushrooms. I couldn’t believe what I was witnessing: my arrest for sacramental mushrooms that didn’t belong to me, at a publicly registered and openly advertised religious nonprofit, in an era where psilocybin mushrooms were gaining recognition for their potential medical benefits and safety compared to alcohol or cannabis.

Despite my disbelief, the fact remained: I was bent over the hood of a police cruiser in a lab coat, surrounded by bags of mushrooms in the dead of night.

In an act of desperation, I chose to cooperate with the police, explaining the mission of the church, the foundational practices of Kabbalistic Judaism, and the purpose of the church facility they had raided.

It took two hours to fully explain my circumstances on record, and I could sense that the investigating officers were shocked by my story. Even for seasoned narcotics detectives, arresting a professional chemist with kilograms of wet psychedelic mushrooms at an advanced laboratory operated by a nonprofit Jewish synagogue was far from ordinary.

After the interview, I was told that the officers would investigate my claims by verifying the existence of the church and its community of over 300 congregants. For now, I was placed on investigative hold and sent to the city jail. As I was transported, the officer driving the cruiser expressed interest in my religious beliefs and confessed a desire to try psychedelics. I couldn’t resist informing the officer that the synagogue welcomed all without prejudice, should they ever choose to attend a ceremony.

The Reality of Incarceration

Upon arrival at Denver City Jail, I was processed, screened for COVID-19, and kept in a temporary holding room until a prison cell was ready. My court hearing was scheduled for the following morning, with release expected later that day. I changed into the orange scrubs of an inmate under the watchful gaze of a corrections officer who snickered at my visible discomfort.

Not long after I climbed into the top bunk above a fellow inmate, a nurse arrived to administer Suboxone to the man below me. Unfortunately, the inmate hit his head on the metal bed frame, opening a bloody gash, which went unnoticed by the medical staff. After administering the dose, the nurse advised the inmate to stay in jail until the effects of the Suboxone had dissipated, and then promptly left him in a sleepy stupor. He was released from prison hours later, without his glasses or cellphone, potentially unaware of the overdose risk he faced if he decided to use opiates again.

Moments after the nurse’s departure, a small wad of discarded paper appeared from underneath the cell door. It was a note from an inmate in the adjacent cell who had overheard the nurse administering Suboxone. The inmate offered coffee, sugar, and other commissary treats in exchange for more Suboxone. Although I was given a mangled pen shaft to respond, I had to disappoint the inmate by explaining that the drugs weren’t mine to give in the first place, and they were already gone.

Despite what I’d been told, I was not released the following morning. Uncertain hours dragged into days as I languished in jail, unable to speak to anyone outside.

Despite the challenges of incarceration, I found an anchor in the flimsy pen shaft I’d been given my first night behind bars. Throughout sleepless nights, I covertly journaled my experiences in the margins of my intake paperwork, holding the makeshift pen and papers out of sight from the guards. I began to notice the details of my surroundings—the layers of stained paint on the cinder block walls, the rank, humid smell of suffering and shame in the air. Desperate for news, I asked for an update from a corrections officer delivering the evening meals, but received only laughter in response.

My dreams were haunted by vivid visions of a court trial, conviction, and sentencing. Yet, amid the nightmares, I experienced a spontaneous endogenous psychedelic dream state that offered a glimmer of hope and resilience.

Pretrial Observation

Finally, I was released. Over the days that followed, the fleeting relief I felt upon leaving prison quickly decayed into anxiety and agoraphobia. Loud noises, emergency vehicle sirens, and media depictions of police officers triggered episodes of post-traumatic stress. Despite years of applying various psychotherapeutic methods for my own healing, and weekly support from a therapist, I struggled to remain emotionally present and descended into a deeply dissociative depression.

As an accused felon under mandatory pretrial observation, I was unable to leave the state of Colorado without court approval and had to check in with the assigned pretrial officer after every court hearing. Any attempts to secure employment were thwarted by the glaring red flag of a level one drug felony on my background check. Career opportunities that had been secured months prior were abandoned in light of the investigation. Even driving for Lyft was no longer an option.

In this haze of rejection and persecution, I received the support of family and friends, notably my civil attorney, Robert Rush, who connected me with Sean McAllister, a well-known champion of psychedelic and social justice local to Denver. His confidence and thorough understanding of the law were critical to the ongoing court proceedings and gave solace to my shattered sense of security in the future.

Sean and I reviewed hundreds of pages of documents and photos from discovery over the next few months. Just weeks after the arrest, I was reading various reports from officers describing their firsthand experiences arresting, detaining, and interviewing me, along with my mugshot, fingerprints, and a full transcript of the phone calls I made from prison. Working through the crippling weight of anxiety and deeply triggering nature of reviewing evidence, I attempted to offer insights and interpretations that eventually became integral to our initial argument for full dismissal of the criminal charges.

Despite seemingly insurmountable support for a guilty verdict and the shame I had internalized through the trauma of these experiences, I held onto the conviction that this criminal accusation was merely a relic of vestigial legislation. The misinformation and outright lies seeded by prohibitionist narratives since the advent of the War on Drugs had blossomed into burgeoning tendrils of prejudice and ignorance that stemmed throughout the criminal justice system and ensnared countless victims in its thorny grip.

Thankfully, I was hardly alone in this opinion. Mounting support for sweeping changes to psychedelic law had catalyzed the decriminalization of psilocybin in Denver just a few short years before, and a recent report from an impartial review board discovered that the past two years of decriminalization had not led to any significant public safety concerns.

Following his involvement in the initial campaign for decriminalization, my attorney continued to fight for psychedelic access through his work with the Natural Medicine Health Act (NMHA). This new law sought to retroactively decriminalize personal possession, storage, use, processing, transport, obtainment, ingestion, cultivation, gifting, and ancillary support services for psilocybin mushrooms and other natural psychedelic medicines, and create a legal clinical system for patients to access therapies at licensed facilities, staffed by specialists trained to state specified standards.

In comparison to my legal conundrum, this new paradigm seemed like salvation. Despite my social anxiety and traumatic episodes of police-related paranoia, I attended several events in support of the NMHA and immersed myself in the local ecosystem of fellow psychedelic enthusiasts and professionals. Stark differences in opinion over decriminalization versus legalization and regulation divided the group into clear sides: those in support of the NMHA and those opposed.

With the prospect of my freedom hanging in the balance, I was deeply confused and saddened by this conflict. Completely unable to discuss the details of the ongoing investigation, I repressed impulses to share my struggle, instead opted to thoroughly review the language of the NMHA itself and network with the incredible individuals responsible for drafting and supporting it. The guidance and expertise offered by this group was invaluable during this vulnerable time. I was humbled to receive their presence in my life and gladly accepted an invitation to host an educational psychedelic mini-conference at my home. The event included numerous presentations, talks, demonstrations, and group exercises from expert members of the local community and conjured a feeling of much-needed camaraderie in light of the glaring uncertainty surrounding the approaching election.

Despite all my efforts and attempts to support the campaign, review case evidence, and secure a path through this upheaval, I ultimately had to surrender to a lack of control. I slowly allowed a fickle feeling of freedom within myself and began to engage in my own life with renewed interest.

On a serendipitous skate down the Cherry Creek Trail into Confluence Park, I ran into a representative of the NMHA collecting signatures for the law’s inclusion on the upcoming November ballot. As I happily offered my support, I reflected upon the potency of surrender and its demonstrated ability to align me with an opportunity to support progress for the future of psychedelics and my freedom.

The Road to Redemption

Notwithstanding the inspiring support offered by compassionate communities, gaining ground with the prosecution moved at a snail’s pace. Resistance to dismiss the case outright was inherent to their initial plea offer of a level three drug felony (DF3), requiring up to four years of imprisonment and fines up to $500,000. Besides litigating the case in court, the upcoming vote for the Natural Medicine Health Act appeared to be the only way towards resolution.

After submitting my ballot in support of the NMHA as early as possible, I hit the road to visit loved ones and explore the natural beauty of the country. Over the months leading up to the November 2022 elections, I surrendered to the sweeping landscapes of North America, crossing the distance between California and New York twice before the ballots were counted. No matter what the future held for me, I was determined to bring my fullest attention to the precious days I had left and enjoy the freedom and simplicity allowed by a life rich with companionship and catharsis.

By November, the NMHA passed, marking significant progress in the psychedelic movement. Still, the prosecution remained resistant to dismissal. I contemplated accepting a plea deal to avoid incarceration, but it felt like a conviction in itself.

My legal journey took an unexpected turn in mid-December 2022 when my attorney presented a compelling argument for dismissal based on the NMHA’s language. To my astonishment, all criminal charges against me were entirely dismissed.

Reflections on Freedom and Justice

The dismissal of my case highlighted a profound shift in societal values regarding psychedelics. However, I couldn’t help but think about the countless lives affected by the War on Drugs and the thin line between freedom and persecution. My own burdens included debt, missed career opportunities, and traumatic memories.

As Colorado prepared to draft guidelines for the psilocybin industry, I continued to struggle to recover seized property. While progress had been made, the burdens of prohibitionist policies continued – and continues – to threaten the lives and liberties of many Americans.

My journey from arrest to legal redemption was a rollercoaster ride through the complexities of drug laws, personal trauma, and the evolving landscape of psychedelics. While I found freedom in the dismissal of my case, the broader fight for justice and the responsible use of psychedelics is very far from over.

Amidst the fervent cries of psychedelic-centric victory heard around Colorado since the passing of the Natural Medicine Health Act (NMHA), it is important to remember those less publicized, less well-funded, and less white, human beings who continue to suffer and die from various manifestations of the War on Drugs – the same political ill that prevented access to “natural medicines” in the first place.

A malignant disease afflicting the collective body of culture, the War on Drugs is among the most horrific, anti-human disasters in the history of American policy. Lack of access to psychedelics is one symptom of this disease, but there are many others; including the opioid overdose epidemic, mass incarceration, the creation of Mexico’s narco-state, the militarization of police, the erosion of personal rights, and continued institutionalized racism. Like a very expensive band-aid triumphantly placed on the skinned knee cap of a dying person by self-congratulatory doctors, the NMHA does absolutely nothing to alleviate these most malignant symptoms of the disease that is the War on Drugs. In this way, the NMHA and other psychedelic-centric drug policies paradoxically represent the continuation of oppression more than its end.

Passed on November 8th, 2022 by Colorado voters through a ballot initiative, the NMHA brought immediate statewide decriminalization and pending legalization of certain “natural medicines” including psilocybin, DMT, mescaline, and iboga. Those unfamiliar with the details of the NMHA can read about them extensively here. As far as psychedelic policy goes, the NMHA is a reasonably cutting-edge development, merging both legalization and decriminalization models. But there is no such thing as a “psychedelic policy,” only drug policy.

Dr. Carl Hart, Columbia University’s Department of Psychology Chair, defines the problem succinctly as “psychedelic exceptionalism,” “the perspective that psychedelics are somehow better and more useful than other classes of drugs like opioids or stimulants.” This rampant false belief that psychedelics can be meaningfully separated from the larger drug policy conversation enables the generally privileged and up-power “psychedelic community” to ignore prohibition itself as the core societal disease while profiting from the treatment of a single symptom. Rather ironic, really.

Gazing through the glamor and capitalist speculation currently surrounding the psychedelic phenomenon reveals a more essential truth: Psychedelics are morally-neutral substances just like any other. Our inability to see this is our responsibility, but, in part, not our fault. America has a long-standing tradition of simplistic moralistic judgments around substances which began with the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement in the 1800s and continued through programs like D.A.R.E. Our cultural soil is deeply seeded with the idea of “good drugs” used by “good people” and “bad drugs” used by “bad people.”

After decades of wrestling with this tired old narrative, we’re finally managing to change it, but only along those same dualistic lines of thinking. By highlighting the positive effects of psychedelics, we have begun to politically pry some useful substances from the realm of “bad” drugs. The DEA is now considering releasing MDMA from its unscientific schedule I clutches while states legalize and decriminalize some psychedelics. This is the entire basis of the psychedelic renaissance. What has unfortunately not been considered is the problem with assigning a moralistic value to substances in the first place. In a compensatory over-swing of the flawed rhetorical pendulum, “psychedelic people” and their “medicines” are now coming to be seen as “good.” Such thinking leads predictably to unjust policy outcomes. This is, after all, the same fallacious logic that sparked the War on Drugs in the first place.

The categorical separation of “good” drugs and “bad” drugs is synonymous with the assignment of human beings into those same categories. The prevalence of this bias in the psychedelic space, implicit or explicit, betrays a deep lack of contextual awareness leading to oppressive behavior, which is contrary to the kind of societal-level healing that the movement claims to represent. Despite the political utility of rhetorically distancing psychedelics from other substances, our “natural medicines” are still ultimately “drugs” that must be considered within the larger context of American drug policy.

The Cultural Context of Psychedelics: A Brief Reminder of The War on Drugs

To triage the symptoms of prohibition, addressing each by their lethality, reveals a clear picture of the injustice inherent in a myopic focus on psychedelic-centric policy change. While it’s true that lack of access to psychedelics is preventing untold numbers of people from receiving helpful treatments for things like anxiety, depression, PTSD, addiction, etc., these kinds of maladies are collectively overshadowed by more immediately fatal symptoms of prohibition.

Itemizing the harms of the War on Drugs is something akin to sorting through the rubble of a war-torn metropolis while bombs are still falling – an extensively horrific task far exceeding the scope of this article. Two vignettes that partially describe the scope of destruction can be found in the interwoven phenomena of the opioid epidemic and mass incarceration; two direct symptoms of the War on Drugs.

The number of people who died from opioid overdose in 2022 was the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every 2 weeks, and rising in 2023. After September 11th, 2001, the U.S. reacted swiftly to pass a series of sweeping legislation, initiate new programs, and even go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opioids clearly kill many times more people than terrorism ever has, but no such action is being taken. We won’t even mention the fact that opium production in Afghanistan was higher under U.S. control. The solutions to the opioid problem can be clearly found in harm reduction-based policies such as those implemented in Canada and Portugal. These policies stand on much firmer empirical ground than those arguments that drove our country to war in the Middle East, so where is the commiserate response?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls the recent spike in overdose deaths the “third wave.” It kicked off in 2013, is around nine times larger than any other overdose “wave” in history, and is primarily due to synthetic opioids like “illicitly manufactured fentanyl” and carfentanil. Fentanyl has long been found as an adulterant in compounds sold as heroin, but in recent years, it’s also been found in things that are not opioids like MDMA and cocaine. Fentanyl’s prevalence as an adulterant is directly tied to the underground market that was created by the War on Drugs.

Throughout alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, simple logistical realities incentivized clandestine distillers to manufacture the strongest possible concentrate of their drug, and moonshine was born. It was both easier to conceal and more profitable per gallon than beer or lesser-proof spirits. Fentanyl is the same story. One pound of Fentanyl is as potent as nearly 50 pounds of heroin, and one pound of carfentanil is as potent as 100 pounds of heroin. Which is more likely to be smuggled across a border? The manufacture and indiscriminate distribution of the most lethal substances is not stopped by the War on Drugs, it is directly caused by it.

An article published in the Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics titled “We Can’t Go Cold Turkey: Why Suppressing Drug Markets Endangers Society” names U.S. drug policy itself as a “key accelerant that transformed this wave of addiction into an inferno of death, disease, and personal destruction.” It’s well known that a policy approach centering harm reduction and public health over criminal punishment greatly reduces overdose deaths. Yet, we continue to quietly tolerate more than a hundred thousand American deaths each recent year.

Overdose is only one of many dark manifestations of prohibition untouched by psychedelic-centric policies. The United States, the “land of the free,” only has 4% of the world’s overall population, yet holds 20% of the prison population. Of those people in U.S. prisons, 45% are there for nonviolent drug offenses. This means that nearly 10% of human beings in prison on planet Earth are imprisoned in the United States as non-violent victims of the War on Drugs.

The outcome of American drug policy is so horrifically maligned with the logical goals of such policies (public health & safety) that one can’t help but question the intentions of policymakers. Far from the realm of fringe conspiracy, we have seen institutional harm inflicted intentionally on substance users in the past.  In the 1920s, the U.S. Government intentionally poisoned alcohol heading for the underground market, resulting in the death of at least 10,000 people. This action was justified using logic that claimed people who use drugs are bad, morally reprehensible humans – that same tired old trick of moral conflation. If the goal of the War on Drugs was to reduce drug use and create a safer society, then it has failed horribly. If the goal is to punish “bad” drug users in some of the most severe ways imaginable, then the War on Drugs has been a resounding success.

Through the lens of trauma-informed care, which invites us to see substance use as a result of trauma, the situation becomes downright sinister. A common American story might be told as such: A traumatized person turns to substances as a momentarily helpful coping mechanism. (Those with 4 or more Adverse Childhood Experiences are 1,350% more likely to abuse opiates than the general population). As a direct result of prohibition itself, the substances they find on the street are concentrated to the highest potency imaginable. There are few, if any, harm reduction or effective mental health services available. Instead, a militarized police force backed by an 80-billion-dollar prison industry is actively seeking to put this person in a cage – that is if they don’t overdose first. It is into this maelstrom that policies like the NMHA interject: “Legalize psychedelics!”

Why Only “Natural Medicines”?

A report from the Colorado Department of Public Safety on substance use trends does not even mention psilocybin or other psychedelics as relevant factors in state public health. The report does, however, describe an increase in fentanyl-related incidents including lethal overdose, explaining that 275,569 doses of fentanyl were seized in 2021. According to the Denver Open Data Crime Catalog, only 14 people were arrested for psychedelics in 2021, and 24 people in 2020. For opioid arrests in those same years, the numbers were much higher: 236 and 348 people respectively. The numbers were even higher for the worst outcomes, with an average of about 1,000 people dying every year in Colorado from an opioid overdose. In this way, psychedelics are not an immediately pressing issue from a law enforcement or public health perspective. So why do they continue to be the sole focus of organized and well-funded political efforts such as that which birthed the NMHA? Why has this particular symptom of prohibition received so much attention, funding, and policy action?

Interest Convergence: Suddenly The Privileged Care About Drug Policy

It’s an unfortunate truth that our beloved Renaissance and all of the psychedelic research and policy are predominantly reflective of white interests. One historian asserts that “psychedelic culture [is] dominated by privileged white men.” Indeed, a recent U.S.-based survey of over 41,000 people found that more than half of the white respondents had used psilocybin or LSD, “whereas less than one-quarter of Black [people] reported lifetime psilocybin use.” A relevant meta-analysis examining 18 studies on psychedelic-assisted therapy that occurred between 1993 and 2013 revealed that “82.3% of the participants were non-Hispanic white.” Psychedelic exceptionalism appears to have firm roots in institutional racism and white privilege.

“Under the theory of interest convergence, there will be no racial progress unless the interests of the marginalized align with the interests of those in power,” said the dean of equity and inclusivity at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Tomar Pierson-Brown. Drug use itself is nearly universal, and a full half of the people in the United States 12 years and older have used illegal drugs at least once, but there have always been substantial practical disparities in the way our culture takes and politically relates to substances based on arbitrary categorization.

Despite the fact that white people use drugs at higher rates, Black people are nearly three times as likely to be arrested for them; and people of color now make up more than 66% of the U.S. prison population while representing only 37% of the general population. Overdose rates also display increasing disparity across racial and economic lines. Between 2019 and 2020, overdose death rates throughout the U.S. rose 44% for Black people, 39% for American Indian/Alaska natives, and only 20% for white people. Counties with greater economic inequality saw Black people die from overdose twice as often compared to counties with more equal economic distribution.

As if by design, historically oppressed groups suffer and die from the War on Drugs at higher rates than white people. Though the recent intensification of overdose deaths allows a more clear view, we have seen these same kinds of disparities for decades with little attention given. Besides MAPS, which is perhaps the first pharmaceutical company in history to explicitly oppose the War on Drugs, there have been few for-profit organizations working to fight prohibition in any way. Now we see psychedelic ticker stocks, psychedelic venture capitalists, and psychedelic certificate programs all vehemently fronting the narrative of “healing” while functionally ignoring the collective disease that is the War on Drugs.

It seems institutional racism, the at-scale death of opioid users, and mass incarceration were not enough to attract the attention of the wealthy and powerful to drug policy. Only the promise of greater wealth has been sufficient to finally stir society’s biggest players into support of limited reform. Suddenly, every venture capitalist is a psychedelic advocate, but where are the drug policy advocates? After all, the only true difference between the heroin dealer and the “psychedelic entrepreneur” is that one is on a side of the culturally created narrative which happens to be favored at this particular moment in history. Tomar Pierson-Brown puts it succinctly in saying: “It’s not irony, it’s interest convergence.”

Healing Without Harming: Anti-Oppressive Psychedelic Advocacy

Psychedelic modalities are without-argument desperately needed as accessible tools for front-line mental health professionals, but policy efforts focused on them exclusively are oppressive. Ibram Kendi, author of How to be an Antiracist, explains that “there is no such thing as not racist, there are either anti-racists or racists.” In this same way, drug policy is either anti-oppressive or oppressive. There is no in-between. Without applying this attitude, policy and organizational efforts within the psychedelic space are destined to become embodied examples of oppression.

Anti-oppressive approaches “minimize the effects of structural inequalities, social hierarchies, and power differentials.” As we have seen, psychedelic-centric policies like Colorado’s NMHA actually accentuate the power of the dominant groups and do absolutely nothing for the people suffering most from the War on Drugs. Drug policies like the NMHA neglect the most destructive aspects of the War on Drugs in favor of the more profitable, ‘sexy,’ and privilege-aligned substances (like psychedelics). These kinds of policies pander to the dominant culture while ignoring the core problem.

Fervent psychedelic purists (I know because I used to be one) will argue that making psychedelic healing widely available would lead to the amelioration of addiction. While this is true to a degree, it would not happen fast enough to meaningfully stem the tide of overdose deaths and is a backward way to approach the problem; like using nicotine patches to treat lung cancer.

Anti-oppressive psychedelic advocacy must necessarily include and prioritize an end to the War on Drugs as a whole, not just psychedelic legalization or decriminalization. The systemic situation that prevents access to psychedelics is the same that has created the overdose epidemic, mass incarceration, and a slew of other hugely destructive phenomena. It’s the War on Drugs and the disease of prohibition. As beneficiaries of recent drug policy changes, psychedelic institutions of all kinds have a clear responsibility to advocate for an end to the War on Drugs writ large. To ask “How can I make a psychedelic dollar?” without simultaneously asking “What can I do to help end the War on Drugs?” is unjust and tone-deaf. Only by directly addressing the core disease itself, and not just a single symptom, can we begin to truly heal as a culture.

On the eve before the final vote, Jon Dennis, Esq. shares his thoughts.

If you don’t know Jon Dennis yet, he’s an activist and attorney leading the charge for affordable community access and religious freedom under Oregon’s Measure 109 program, as well as the co-host of our Eyes on Oregon series. He’s been involved in many of the official Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Subcommittee meetings and has been keeping us up to date with everything going on in Oregon. 

Last week, Jon shared an update on the effort for religious freedom and community access that included official public comments from David Bronner, the Psychedelics Bar Association’s Religious Use Committee, Dr. William Richards of Johns Hopkins, and the Entheogenic Practitioners Council of Oregon. While not our typical blog content, we felt it was important to highlight these statements because they so passionately display how important this is to so many Oregonians and others across the United States – and because rulemakers may be reading.

This week is the week many in the psychedelic community have been working toward and excitedly anticipating, as Wednesday, May 25th is the day the Oregon Psilocybin Advisory Board (OPAB) will make its final vote on whether to recommend allowing a community-use paradigm of psilocybin services that Jon and so many others have been advocating for. 

To hopefully bring even more attention to this landmark event, we thought it’d be helpful to share the comment Jon sent to the OHA, as it perfectly summarizes why his proposed entheogenic practitioners framework is so important.

We invite Oregon rulemakers to read Jon’s succinct overview of the issues in advance of their Wednesday vote. 

---

“There is a growing social movement that believes access to psychedelics is a fundamental civil and human right that should be denied to no person. Members of this movement consider psychedelic freedom to be the maligned cousin of religious freedom. For some people, they are the same or very closely intertwined.

Pew Research data show that only 49% of people report ever having had a mystical experience in their entire lives, which is defined as a “moment of sudden religious insight or awakening.” Also, 49% of respondents to your Community Interest Survey on psilocybin under M109 said they were interested in psilocybin for spiritual reasons. 

The fastest growing category of religious self-identification in the United States is people who identify as “spiritual but not religious.” For a growing number of people in our society, religious institutions have come to be viewed with distrust, often because they have inflicted religious trauma on people who’ve come in search of healing. When I began talking about the proposed religious use framework under M109, I was initially amazed at the amount of criticism I got on account of it protecting “religions.” People liked the community access model, but they thought they wouldn’t benefit from it because “religion” for them has become obsolete.  

I believe, as many do, that we are undergoing a spiritual crisis. Martin Luther King warned that a society that is addicted to war and ignores its problems of racism and poverty “is approaching spiritual death.” There is growing recognition that we have the analytical and technical solutions required to solve many of the world’s greatest problems but lack the social and political will. King recommended that we become less of a “thing-oriented society” and more of a “person-oriented society.” 

I see these problems as spiritual in nature and believe they might be solvable only through spiritual solutions. 

Oregon is about to begin a great experiment of introducing legal adult-use psychedelics into mainstream Western society through its safe and legal container of Measure 109. So far as I can tell, nearly everyone who works with psilocybin or other psychedelics in a sincere and personal manner believes that psychedelics have the potential to help us breathe some much-needed spiritual life into society. We believe adoption of an affordable community-access model of psilocybin services to be a moral imperative. 

An expensive program in Oregon creates a new kind of religious or spiritual inequity that I don’t think we are capable of fully comprehending yet, but it clearly exacerbates other types of social problems that already plague us. 

“Affordable access for all people” doesn’t mean that everyone should take psychedelics. I view the question of whether to take psychedelics as a big decision that should be made only after careful consideration of a number of things. One of the best promises of the M109 system, from my perspective, is that people will be required to consider some of these things before they make potentially life-altering decisions, and that people can agree to purchase these potentially-profound and potentially-destabilizing psilocybin experiences only after giving informed consent. The other great M109 promises: Support is available before, during, and after the experience; there will be a lot more oversight and accountability; a lot more access to medical and legal assistance; and people won’t really have to fear going to jail. This framework is a light-years-leap forward in terms of the safeguards of the so-called “unregulated market.” It really is quite brilliant.  

Within the M109 framework, the harms that could be caused by untested, community-grown mushrooms would be practically non-existent in the context of sincere community use and cannot be used as an honest justification for rules that would effectively require communities who work with psilocybin to procure their community sacrament through commercial channels. When regulations drive up costs without serving important government interests, they raise paywalls, deepen inequities, and further racial, gender, class, and other divides. 

Affordable, community-grown mushrooms would decrease paywalls and, contrary to the position announced in your Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement, actually drive more of the unregulated market into the safety of the M109 container. More people will take psilocybin under M109 if its costs are considered by consumers to be justifiable when compared with the unregulated market. 

Moreover, many religious and spiritual communities who work with psilocybin report having a relationship with the living psilocybin organism that can only be described as sacred. Under federal jurisprudence, religious freedom laws require a “compelling government interest” in order for the government to have any say on how a religious community grows, handles, stores, consumes, or discards their psychedelic sacraments. And (assuming arguendo that the government might have a compelling interest here), any time a government deigns to enforce laws that burden free religious exercise, under federal jurisprudence, it must still tread carefully and impair religious freedom only by “the least restrictive means” of doing so. 

Sincere religious communities are publicly saying that they intend to operate under Measure 109, and it is only right that the State consider the regulation of these organizations in light of the broad federal protections that now exist under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – and which were, in fact, enacted in reaction to Oregon’s allowing members of the Native American Church to be fired for practicing their religion, which uses peyote. 

Oregon isn’t a state that generally tries to short-change people on civil liberties issues.  

The ask here is that you permit Oregonians to take and use the non-Western medicine in ways that reflect non-Western paradigms of health and wellness. The truth is: potency-testing is part of a Western paradigm, and psilocybin has always been a non-Western medicine. It is exciting to witness the power of psilocybin beginning to be harnessed by skillful Western medical practitioners, but Western practitioners are relatively new to the psilocybin and the psychedelic scene. It is appropriate for us Westerners to defer to Indigenous voices when their experience surpasses our own, and to incorporate their wisdom and experience into our “Oregon Model.” I believe we can do this if only we make sure these psilocybin regulations aren’t too rigid or too heavy handed.

The entheogenic practitioner framework and manufacturing endorsement work together to do two things:

1. Honor the religious liberties of sincere religious practitioners who work with psilocybin; and 
2. Create an affordable community-access model and community container for psilocybin services. 

A one-size-fits-all system would treat churches and other community-owned nonprofit organizations the same way as luxury resorts. This is out of touch with federal religious freedom laws and raises unnecessary paywalls for 520,000 Oregonians who live in poverty. 

I hope you will consider these things when you decide how to balance safety and access. 

Yours in service,

Jon Dennis”

Stay tuned for updates and analysis after Wednesday’s vote, as the coming weeks will bring forth a revamped Eyes on Oregon podcast, as well as a new series exploring Oregon’s emerging psychedelic marketplace through the lens of lawyers. 

---

Jon Dennis, Esq. looks closely at what Oregon’s Measure 109 really says, and provides a possible framework for the fair treatment of religious-use sacrament.

Oregon’s Psilocybin Services Act, aka Measure 109, is currently undergoing a reputational makeover. Although primarily advertised to voters as “psilocybin therapy,” clinical use of psilocybin is only one of the many modalities of psilocybin services that may soon be permitted in Oregon. Nearly all of the media reporting on M109 have echoed the messaging of the M109 electoral campaign, creating a narrative that Oregon voted to legalize “psilocybin therapy.” But now that people are beginning to write and speak about M109 in a more careful and nuanced way, many are surprised to find out that the psilocybin law passed in Oregon allows people to take psilocybin for virtually any reason.

If there is still any doubt about whether M109 is a “therapy” program, Tom Eckert, one of the chief co-petitioners of Measure 109 and now the chair of the Oregon Psilocybin Advisory Board (“OPAB”) (as well as a practicing therapist), said in a recent interview that “The idea [of M109] is to create safe space under the facilitation of licensed professionals to explore [the psilocybin] experience for personal benefit.” According to Eckert, taking psilocybin under M109 is “about your consciousness and using psilocybin however you really want to, whether it’s creative, spiritually, or for a therapeutic benefit.” 

This means, of course, that psilocybin may be used pursuant to religious or spiritual exercise. It means that psilocybin churches might soon become commonplace in Oregon.

The intersection of M109 and religious liberties is an important and complex topic that so far has received very little attention during the meetings of OPAB and its 5 subcommittees. Religious exploration is already a large part of this so-called “psychedelic renaissance,” and all signs point to religious use of psychedelics becoming more prevalent over time. Because the “Oregon model” of psychedelic services has become one of the leading models in psychedelic policy reform, it is paramount we build religious protections into the model.

In response to public comment, the Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) recently published the following statement:  

Q: Can the psilocybin services be offered within a ceremonial or religious context? 

A: Yes, if psilocybin services take place at a licensed service center and is otherwise compliant with statute and rule requirements. 

In other words, OHA intends to allow the religious use of psilocybin if performed in accordance with Oregon’s regulatory framework for psilocybin. The preceding sentence constitutes pretty much everything we know so far about how Oregon intends to address religious practice under the measure. This is particularly concerning in light of the fact that OPAB has many complex issues to still resolve, and it must issue its final recommendations by June 30 – meaning there are only 15 hours of full OPAB meeting time remaining. Time is running out for Oregon to create thoughtful and nuanced policy on this matter of great importance.

Fortunately, serious conversations about religious practice are about to begin. The February 2 meeting of the Equity Subcommittee and the February 3 meeting of the Licensing Subcommittee and the Equity Subcommittee will address religious use. 

What is Essential to a Religious-Use Framework?

When considering what a religious-use framework might look like under M109, I identify six elements that are essential:

1. It must permit a broad range of religious practices and ceremonies without unnecessary interference from the government. Protections should accommodate practices and beliefs ranging from traditional Indigenous practices to contemporary Western, Eastern, and neo-shamanic religions that incorporate psilocybin into their practices;
2. It must create a pathway for religious practice that is affordable to marginalized communities;
3. The regulations should allow special rules around the growing, storing, handling, and testing of psilocybin mushrooms that reflect the view common in many entheogenic communities that the mushrooms themselves are sacred objects worthy of reverential treatment;
4. The regulations must provide meaningful oversight of and accountability for religious practitioners, particularly in:
   1. Screening new members;
   2. Disclosing risks/obtaining informed consent;
   3. Preventing abuse; and
   4. Ensuring that religious practice is conducted in a safe manner;
5. Given the Oregon constitution’s protection of both the religious and the non-religious*, the regulations must not give preferences to “religious” over “non-religious” organizations or individuals. Accordingly, the criteria for who may operate within the “religious framework” should be framed in terms of sincere practice relating to one’s deeply-held values, beliefs, and convictions, rather than affiliation with a religious organization;
6. It should be simple enough to administer that it does not cause a substantial burden on OHA. 

With these considerations in mind, I have taken the liberty of drafting a proposed model regulatory framework for how religious practice could be protected under Measure 109. My proposed framework may be found here:

I am actively seeking stakeholder feedback. Please email me with questions or comments. To execute this project well means compiling and assembling a wide range of stakeholder input, so please do reach out.

One of the fundamental assumptions underlying the model is that if religious-use privileges are only affordable to a small subset of the population, it might actually be better to not grant special religious privileges at all. Perhaps the most iniquitous aspect of M109 is that access to psilocybin will be unaffordable to a lot of people. Luckily, as we will see, religious use privileges can be structured in a manner that creates new pathways to affordable access.

Several key features of this framework may be aided by some explanation.

Peer-Support Assistance

Measure 109 requires that all psilocybin be purchased, possessed, and consumed “under the supervision of a …facilitator” (Section 57 (2)). The measure does not otherwise describe what that supervision should look like, which leaves open many possibilities.

Currently it appears that Oregon is poised to require that the majority of assistance given to clients must be provided by paid facilitators, who are prohibited from taking psilocybin while serving as a facilitator. If this is the case, even if Oregon adopts liberal rules that require lower amounts of paid facilitation, I estimate that a “cheap” group session, offered by a nonprofit, will not be available for less than $500 per person, including the costs of psilocybin. This is inequitable. We can do much better.

Luckily, Indigenous and other religious and spiritual communities have substantial history and experience using plant medicines as sacraments in ceremony. They provide clear proof that ceremony can be safely conducted without the need for paid facilitators who abstain from fully participating in the ceremony. Accordingly, religious communities who operate under M109 should have the option to provide their own peer-support assistance through community members that have been certified by their community as being qualified and capable to provide that assistance.

Reasonable minds could disagree about how much the state should regulate that certification. Regulation could be enacted to encourage the slow and sustainable growth of these organizations and to ensure that the clients who provide peer-support assistance are familiar with and oriented to the community in which they intend to serve. Successful implementation of this system will require relationship-building within each community, and the regulations could require that a client be involved with a community for a period of time (which could be defined by a minimum number of ceremonies attended) before they begin providing peer-support assistance. Or the regulations could simply trust the community to responsibly manage itself, particularly in light of the fact that its licensure could be lost if it behaves irresponsibly. 

The freedom to exercise one’s religion means little if paywalls keep most people out. However, if  peer-support assistance is allowed, it could avoid having to pay unneeded facilitators to “supervise” ceremonies. The number of facilitators that are needed to safely supervise a ceremony may vary by community, but well-organized communities could conceivably conduct ceremonies safely with only one facilitator present. By reducing the number of facilitators that must be on hand for a ceremony, we drastically reduce the cost of the ceremony.

Additionally, many entheogenic religions do not permit people into their ceremonial space who have not consumed at least some amount of their sacrament. The idea in some communities is that the presence of people who are on a different vibrational wavelength (i.e., who have not partaken of the sacrament) fundamentally prevents participants from receiving certain religious benefits. Facilitators are prohibited from taking psilocybin while serving as a facilitator, so allowing facilitators to supervise from outside the ceremonial space is the only option if this view is to be respected. This could be safely done if peer-support assistance were permitted by clients who are participating in the ceremony. This permits a higher degree of self-governance and self-reliance, which is healthy.

This peer-support assistance model was inspired in part by the practices of the Church of the Holy Light of the Queen (“CHLQ”). CHLQ is the Santo Diame church who successfully sued the federal government for the right to use Daime (which some people call ayahuasca) in their religious practices.** In their 25 years of practice, it is my understanding that CHLQ has never had a safety situation which they were not able to safely manage internally. For people interested in learning more about that, I interviewed Padhrino Jonathan Goldman, the spiritual leader of CHLQ, on Episode No. 6 of Eyes on Oregon.

Religious Manufacturing Privileges

The religious manufacturing privileges contemplated by the framework are severalfold:

1) Religious communities are granted permission to grow mushrooms in a less-regulated (i.e., far less expensive) manner than is required of standard manufacturers;

2) Religious growers may grow the species of mushrooms using techniques and substrates that are consistent with their beliefs and convictions, provided that products are safe;

3) Testing of religious products is not required, unless indicated by a client’s adverse medical reaction;

4) Religious products may not be delivered to a service center that is not a religious service center; and

5) Religious growers are under a duty to provide safe products and avoid creating nuisances and other environmental hazards.

The policy considerations behind the proposed religious manufacturing privileges are two-fold: 1) it gives communities the option to offer very low-cost products (mushrooms are famously cheap to grow); and 2) it creates space for Oregon plant medicine communities who believe that the mushrooms themselves are sacred and must be handled with reverence.

Product safety can be maintained without the need for expensive laboratories. Unlicensed, unregulated mushroom growers – many of whom grow in their basements or closets using improvised laboratory equipment – currently create the bulk of consumer psilocybin products. This matters because it serves as a counterpoint to the concern that “under-regulated” manufacturing operations pose a threat to public health or safety. In truth, reports of adverse reactions to unsafe psilocybin products are exceedingly rare, particularly in light of the amount of mushrooms being eaten nowadays.

While the idea of permitting a religious or spiritual community to have homegrown sacramental mushrooms might make some people uncomfortable, it’s worth remembering that you can buy myceliated grow kits for gourmet mushrooms virtually everywhere, and society allows that practice without question. Moreover, the practice of a religious or spiritual community handling its own sacrament in accordance with their beliefs and convictions is a practice that predates Oregon statehood.

Psychedelics, Religion, and the DEA’s Quest for Soul

Relaxed Testing Requirements

Oregon is required by M109 to consider the costs of testing to the client when deciding its testing rules, and testing may not be more onerous than is reasonably necessary for health and safety (Section 96 (7)). Moreover, testing standards must be different for different “varieties of psilocybin products” (Section 96 (1)(d)), which could presumably include mushrooms grown for use in religious ceremony. Relaxed testing rules for religious products will help the state achieve its statutory mandate of striving for an affordable system, while also respecting practitioner beliefs. While this could create greater imprecision in dosing, this is the current state of things in our existing unregulated market, and people safely manage that imprecision. 

Affordability

In addition to providing meaningful autonomy of religious practice, the combination of peer-support assistance and less-regulated religious manufacturing and testing starts to get us close to an affordable system. If all three are adopted, a lower and more satisfying price point begins to emerge. The costs for services may even be as low as the combination of one facilitator’s time that is spread across multiple clients (or which may be donated by volunteer facilitators), low-cost products sold by a nonprofit manufacturer, and overhead costs of running a nonprofit service center.

To drive costs lower still, OHA could adopt a progressive fee structure that permits nonprofit service centers and manufacturers to pay a little less than their “fair share” of the program’s fees. Additionally, onsite manufacturing centers could possibly create a direct manufacturer-to-client sales pipeline that might allow entheogenic service centers to avoid the application of that pesky tax rule, 280E (which disallows tax deductions or credits attributable to businesses that “traffick” controlled substances). This appears to be allowed under M109, as sales by manufacturers must be either “to or on a premises” licensed as a manufacturer or service center (Sections 53 (1)(a) and (2)(a), and Section 57). 

With all of these cost-savings measures in place, it is foreseeable that a psilocybin ceremony under M109 could cost well under $50 per participant. That’s still too expensive. But it’s considerably better. 

Reciprocal Exchange Program

Participation in reciprocal exchange programs should be required of all who engage with the M109 program, from clients to testing laboratories. Involvement with a reciprocal exchange program is important because the programs help minimize the harmful impacts that extraction of cultural and natural resources have on the Indigenous plant medicine communities who have stewarded plant medicines for centuries or longer. It also helps ensure that Indigenous knowledge and wisdom do not become lost or forgotten.

The proposed model framework requires entheogenic practitioners to have an unspecified level of involvement in a reciprocal exchange program, and an annual public report of that involvement. This doesn’t punish bad actors for negligible involvement, but it provides social incentives for people who can demonstrate meaningful participation.

Discipline of Entheogenic Practitioners

Because this framework gives entheogenic practitioners a considerable set of privileges, it also creates a reciprocal set of duties to use those privileges safely and responsibly. To achieve this, the proposed framework borrows language from the Oregon law that protects the religious use of peyote. In order for religious use of peyote to be protected in Oregon, the use must be done “in a manner that is not dangerous to the health of the user or others who are in the proximity of the user (ORS 475.752(4)).” Oregon should adopt the same standard for psilocybin religions who operate under the measure.

Ultimately, if a religious practitioner engages in conduct that is unsafe or irresponsible, the practitioner risks losing their special religious privileges, as well as their general psilocybin licensing. Given the significant financial and personal investment that will go into opening any psilocybin business in Oregon, this provides powerful incentives to operate within the bounds of the regulatory framework.  

Conclusion

In conclusion, if we think of M109 not in terms of “therapy” vs. “not therapy,” but rather (as Tom Eckert put it), a “safe space under the facilitation of licensed professionals to explore [the psilocybin] experience for personal benefit,” it appears the best way for Oregon to reduce the most harm to its people is to invite all beneficial use of psilocybin to come and operate within the relative safety of the M109 container. This includes religious use.

The model framework proposed herein would create a type of partnership or alliance between religious practitioners and OHA. In exchange for paying licensing fees and submitting to administrative oversight, religious communities who use psilocybin gain mechanisms of accountability*** and the freedom to practice with substantially less fear of criminal repercussions. However, in order for entheogenic practitioners to accept Oregon’s invitation, the M109 religious container must not be unduly restrictive in what it allows, and it must be affordable. If these interests can be balanced, psychedelic religious practice could soon find its way out of the shadows of the underground and into the full light of day.

The following is my presentation from the February 3 Oregon Psilocybin Licensing Subcommittee Meeting. Bob Otis of the Sacred Garden Community also presents.

---

*See, e.g., Meltebeke v. Bureau of Lab. & Indus., 322 Or at 147. (Oregon’s constitutional religious protections “extend[] to religious believers and nonbelievers alike.”) This also avoids giving nonreligious clients a financial incentive to seek religious services from a religious provider, which is important. For more information about the inappropriateness of confusing religious and non-religious containers of psychedelic use, see Matthew Johnson’s article entitled “Consciousness, Religion, and Gurus: Pitfalls of Psychedelic Medicine.”

**It’s worth noting that Oregon regulatory agencies have already granted religious exemptions to religious organizations that use controlled substances. See the Oregon Board of Pharmacy’s 2008 letter to CHLQ.

***The need for greater mechanisms of accountability in psychedelic communities is described in horrifying detail in a new podcast series called Cover Story, which is produced by a collaboration of New York Magazine and Psymposia.

By Mike Alexander

Rick Doblin and Bia Labate debated Jeffery Lieberman and Keven Sabet on whether or not psychedelics should be legalized, and the results may surprise you.

Last week, we received an invite to attend an early screening of the newest debate in Intelligence Squared US’s online debate series: “Should Society Legalize Psychedelics?” Being immersed in the world of Psychedelics Today, it seems like we’re constantly involved in various similar conversations around legalization, decriminalization, benefits and dangers, and the less-discussed idea of drug exceptionalism. So while I was curious to see how a question like this would be handled by a more mainstream outlet, I also wondered if they’d get it right. When I saw who would be involved, I knew this would be worth watching. 

Arguing for the motion to legalize psychedelics were Rick Doblin, Founder & Executive Director of MAPS, as you likely know if you’re on this site, and Bia Labate, anthropologist, drug policy expert, and executive director of Chacruna. Against the motion were Jeffrey Lieberman, former President of the American Psychiatric Association and Chair of Columbia University’s Department of Psychiatry, and Keven Sabet, three-time White House drug policy advisor, president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and author of Smokescreen: What the Marijuana Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know. What instantly caught my eye was psychedelic legend Rick Doblin going against a three-time White House drug policy advisor (i.e. “The Man”), and I wanted to see exactly how Doblin would choose to wipe the floor with him. But this was a debate, and debates don’t care solely about facts, which to me, is exactly what makes them so interesting.

After a brief and somewhat cringeworthy performance by “psychedelic comedian” Sarah Rose Siskind (which felt very odd to me—if we’re taking this seriously, why are we starting it out with bad jokes about drugs?), moderator John Donvan came on and asked us all to cast a vote before the debate started. We’d be casting another one after the debate, and the winner would be declared by calculating which side’s numbers increased more, or really, which side won over more of the undecided voters.

I personally feel that this is a very nuanced topic that probably can’t be answered with a simple yes or no, but decided to vote “yes” anyway. 

The debate started and right away, I noticed a classic juxtaposition between Doblin and the Against Legalization team: Lieberman and Sabet wore black sportcoats and white collared shirts with crisp, stylized hair, while Doblin looked to be wearing a Hawaiian shirt, hair as out-of-control as always. Lieberman looked to be sitting in a professional office with hundreds of journals and important books proudly staged behind him, while Doblin looked like someone dug a chair out of the piles of papers in his office and placed him on it shortly after waking him up. The For Legalization team argued passionately, with a more freestyle tone drawing from personal stories, while the Against Legalization team spoke more slowly and seemed to have more prepared statements (Lieberman seemed to be reading off a script several times).

The opening round consisted of each participant getting a few minutes to make as many points as they wanted. Doblin started out by listing what he believed his opponents would agree with him on, and introduced the idea of “licensed legalization,” where the ability to use drugs legally would be handled the way a driver’s license allows you to drive a car (and would therefore be taken away with abuse or misuse). Labate focused on the prevalence of drug use throughout all of history, the racism and failure of the drug war, and how “the sky didn’t fall” when other countries have legalized drugs. 

From the Against Legalization team, Lieberman made it clear that while he has plenty of experience with psychedelics and absolutely sees a benefit, they should be decriminalized only and studied for therapeutic use. He also called out MAPS’s mission statement, saying that their effort to develop cannabis into prescription medicines is a “ruse” to get around prohibition, and posited the idea that the gateways to creativity and spirituality people experience were maybe just the drugs fooling them. Sabet performed pretty strongly here, saying that the historical use Labate talked about couldn’t be further from what would happen if the US legalized psychedelics, which he imagines as stereotypically US as possible, with Super Bowl-level mass commercialization, major lobbyists promoting their agendas, and the rich getting richer off of an addiction-for-profit model. He also said that opioids and alcohol kill more people than all illegal drugs combined, partly because they’re legal and therefore used more.

Round two was more of an open discussion with Donvan moderating. Some good points were made by the For Legalization team: decriminalization means impure drugs; classic psychedelics are not addictive; there actually is a lot of ceremonial use already in the US; commercialization doesn’t mean a psychedelic boogeyman is going to create addictive psychedelics; and decriminalization is not freedom and still comes with fines. 

Meanwhile, the Against Legalization team didn’t seem to grasp why decriminalization wasn’t enough, but made some great points about how legalization doesn’t always mean purer and better (look at tobacco and cigarettes), and if we haven’t gotten this stuff right in all this time, why would we suddenly get it right when it comes to the legalization of psychedelics? Much time was spent on the need for scientific proof over tons of anecdotal stories. The open discussion showed some heat, and also exposed some debater flaws, like Lieberman rambling to the point of me entirely missing his point and Labate not realizing when her time was up and talking over everyone several times.

Round three went back to each participant making closing statements for two minutes. Doblin spoke passionately about how much he and his wife have benefited from regular MDMA use, and said opponents shouldn’t let the fear of overcommercialization from “Big Psychedelic” spoil something so many could benefit from. Labate talked about how the US is the “land of freedoms” (which I laughed out loud at), and we’re going to look back on this time in shame, saying that a lot of what had been said against psychedelics was based on fear, a false narrative, and science’s attempt to control everything. Lieberman said that this would be a very dangerous social experiment, and then spent an odd amount of time talking about Prometheus and Frankenstein. 

Sabet, on the other hand, really killed it here, spending a good chunk of his allotted time reading a quote from Robert Corry (one of the writers of Amendment 64 on Colorado’s 2012 statewide ballot that permitted recreational sales of cannabis), who fully regrets what he has done after seeing the massive commercialization of the industry. He ended by echoing his main point again: “It’s one thing to advocate for decriminalization, ending the war on drugs. It’s another thing to advocate for the commercialization and normalization,” saying that this would create an industry that cared only about profits, to the detriment of everyone’s health and safety.

The pre-recorded debate ended, and those of us who were able to attend the sneak preview were then sent to a live check-in with all the participants. Here, huge points that were missed in the debate were finally made. Doblin asked Sabet if he’s so against big corporations getting rich off drugs, does that mean he’s OK with cartels getting rich instead? 

Labate pointed out that the time people were the most reckless with alcohol was during prohibition. Lieberman hurt himself by making it clear that he felt medical use and recreational use have to be completely separate, and the same drug couldn’t be used for both. Sabet made his same points again, but hurt my view of him a bit by making sure to have the cover of his book prominently displayed twice in his background (I’ve never been a fan of shameless plugs).

My favorite parts of the debate were in this live session. The first was when Founder and Chairman of Intelligence Squared US, Robert Rosenkranz, joined in and made Doblin’s point about money even stronger: If something is bought, that means someone is selling it, so why does the amount of profit and who it’s going to matter so much to Sabet? It can go to corporations and be regulated, or go to criminals and stay unregulated. Which is better?

Labate also shut down Lieberman in extraordinary fashion. Lieberman had already established himself as being extremely focused on science, studies, and needing proof for everything, but also had a really odd moment where he was certain he had more psychedelic experiences under his belt than Doblin. I cringed at this, thinking, “Really? You’re arguing for keeping psychedelics illegal and talking about their dangers while bragging about breaking the law to enjoy them?” So I was filled with joy when he said that he had had wonderful experiences on psychedelics, and Labate immediately hit him with: “But there’s no proof that your experience was wonderful. There’s no peer-reviewed study. How do you know it was wonderful?” Yeah, take that, pal.

There was a place to submit questions, but the live session was kept to a half hour, leaving most questions unanswered. I wanted to know if the Against Legalization team would be for legalization if it was presented in a “licensed legalization” manner—the way Doblin had explained in his first segment (which wasn’t discussed again because it was outside of the main argument). Wesley Thoricatha of Psychedelic Times asked another great question in the chat window: “If our society believes that the benefits of alcohol legalization outweigh the observable risks, how can there be any valid case against legalizing these non-addictive substances that clearly have more potential benefits and less overall risks?” Since the pros didn’t address these thoughts, I guess it’s now the job for all of us to keep asking these questions and having these conversations on our own time. 

All said and done, I really enjoyed this debate and found the arguments really interesting. Sabet’s “why would we get it right this time?” overcommercialization argument really hit home with me, as I’m quickly becoming disgusted with the money-grabs, ridiculous patent-filing, and dangerous “magic pill” narrative that keeps proliferating this movement, while constantly being reminded of the ineffectiveness and rampant corruption in the government. But I wondered if he really meant that, or if he was just trying to win the debate by cashing in on the “rich people are evil” attitude he guessed many viewers would have. And while his vision of the future is ugly, was his point (or any others made by the Against Legalization team) any stronger than Doblin’s argument for taking money out of the hands of criminals in favor of safer drugs?

I loved Labate’s passion and realness and she made some great points, but her talking over people hurt her. Lieberman was very organized and prepared, but his rigidity and inability to make strong, understandable arguments hurt him. So this felt more like a debate between Doblin and Sabet, and after breaking it down more, it really felt like hope, compassion, and common sense were going up against pessimism and fear.

At the end of the debate, the results were tallied. My view was a little more nuanced and I was more open to discussion, but I still generally sided with the For Legalization team. This was not the case for others. Before the debate, 65% of viewers voted to legalize psychedelics, while 15% disagreed with the motion and 20% were undecided. After the debate, however, even though the For Legalization vote increased to 67%, the Against Legalization vote grew to 24%, giving them a 9% total increase over the For Legalization’s 2%. Therefore, in the preliminary vote, Against Legalization ended up winning the debate.

Intelligence Squared US then posted the video and encouraged people to watch, leaving voting open for a week for a separate “online audience” tally. I assumed that a larger audience would trend more towards legalization and I’d get my win here, but I couldn’t have been more wrong. Not only did the Against Legalization vote jump from 11% pre-debate to 30% post-debate, but the For Legalization vote dropped from 74% to 62% too, leaving me to wonder what arguments swayed people so much.

In the end, as I assumed it would, this debate just highlighted the importance of nuance and looking at huge, important topics like this from all angles. I’m not sure that “should society legalize psychedelics?” is a question we should even be asking (can it really be answered with a simple yes or no?), but the beauty of it is that these questions are even being asked and debated, especially by such big names on such a mainstream platform. And as a culture, we’re now making available both sides of the argument, to be heard by anyone who wants to listen. These conversations need to be had, bad arguments need to be called out, and strong points by the other side need to be looked at fairly. While the complete adult-use legalization of all psychedelics may never happen, this is the only way we’re ever going to get close. 

---

---

About the Author

Mike Alexander works for Psychedelics Today. He writes the show notes for each podcast, handles most of the email, edits video and audio, helps with the blog, and annoys the rest of the team on Slack. He eats a lot of pizza, spends a lot of time in the woods, and spends most of his money on Phish tour.